Case Name: Kwesell v. Yale University
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Conn. Docket: 3:19-cv-01098
Case Issue: Is a wellness program that fines employees $1,300. per year for refusing to reveal medical and genetic information and submit to medical examinations "voluntary" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Case Name: Brown v. District of Columbia
Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. Docket: 17-7152
Case Issue: Was the court's finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish "systemic deficiencies" in the manner in which the District of Columbia enrolls nursing home residents into home and community-based services against the weight of the evidence?
Did the court commit legal error by holding that it cannot craft class-wide injunctive relief if class members who have suffered discrimination cannot all benefit from the relief provided due to individualized cirumstances (e.g., some have homes to which to return and others do not)?
Result: The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the trial court and remanded this Olmstead case. Now a class of approximately 1000 nursing facility residents wanting to live in their own homes with the same kind of medical services and supports as they receive in nursing facilities need D.C. to provide assistance.
Case Name: Kleber v. CareFusion
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 17-1206
Decided: 1/23/2019 Petition for Cert Filed: 4/23/2019
Case Result: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a favorable panel decision and held that the district court properly dismissed a job applicant's disparate impact claim against a potential employer for age discrimination because section 4(a)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), does not apply to outside job applicants.
Case Name: Boothby v. California Department of Health Care Serv.
Court: Superior Ct. State of Cal., County of Los Angeles Docket: BC627948
Request for Dismissal Filed: 3/22/2019
Case Comment: Settlement agreement entered into by the parties for retroactive pay and attorneys' fees totaling $447,308.00. California Dept of Health Care Services agreed to pay Registered Dental Hygienists in Alternative Practice 22 months of backpay.
Case Name: Brandenburg v. Montgomery Co. Pub. Schools (MCPS)
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Md. Docket: 8:18-cv-02583
Case Name: Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial (consumer)
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ED N.Y. Docket: 18-7299
Issue: Did Live Well Financial and Celink violate reverse mortgage contracts and applicable law by prepaying property taxes of older homeowners without legal authority and without notice, and then wrongfully demanding repayment out of personal funds?
Case Name: Boothby v. California Department of Health Care Serv. (Healthcare/Income)
Court: California Ct. Appeals Docket: B290534
Result: Settlement agreement entered into by the parties for retroactive pay and attorneys' fees totaling $447,308.00. Approximately 135 dental hygienists will receive 2.7 million in back pay as a result of the trial court's order.
Case Name: Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action v. Twp. of Mt. Holly
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. N..J. (Camden) Docket: 1:08-cv-02584-NLH-JS
Case Issue: Can the residents of the Mt. Holly Gardens redevelopment area who sued Mt. Holly Township for violations of the FHA and obtained a sweeping and comprehensive settlement be compelled to accept replacement housing with mandatory deed restrictions that is of significantly less value than the replacement housing the settlement entitles them to, and is the Township liable to the residents for monetary damages under the settlement if they must accept the deed restrictions required by the state housing program used by the non-profit developer of the replacement housing?
Case Name: Fair Housing Justice Center v. Cuomo
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. NY (Southern Dist.) Docket: 18-civ-3186
Filed: 4/12/2018, Opposition brief filed 10/9/2018
Case Issue: Does a blanket prohibition barring users of wheelchairs from living in Adult Care Facilities regulated and funded through New York State's Department of Health violate the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, and other civil rights laws?
Case Name: Hope Fair Housing Ctr. v. Alden Gardens; H.O.P.E. v. East Gate Manor of Algonquin; H.O.P.E. v. Tabor Hills Supportive Living Cmty.
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ND Ill Docket: 1:15-cv-009715; 15-009717; 15-009719
Case Result: The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS), Department of Human Services (DHS), the Department of Aging (DoA), and the Governor, agreed to make changes to its Supported Living Program (SLP), a Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver Program, to ensure that no individual was denied admission to the SLP on the basis of a mental disability or diagnosis. The settlement included requirements for training of staff throughout the agencies, notification to past applicants who may have been improperly denied admission, notice to nursing homes, service providers, and disability organizations that SLPS were now an available housing service to those with mental disabilities who were otherwise qualified, three years of monitoring, and the payment of almost $900,000 in attorneys’ fees to local counsel and AARP Foundation attorneys.
Case Name: Cooper v. Senior Citizens Housing of Ann Arbor
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ED Mich. Docket: 18-cv-12448-MAG-MKM
Read Complaint (PDF)
Case Issue: Under the Fair Housing Act, can a landlord harass and threaten to evict tenants with disabilities when the landlord determines that the tenants cannot "live independently," even when the tenants are meeting all of their lease obligations?
Case Name: Gish (Matter of the Estate) v. Wells Fargo Bank
Court: New Mexico State Ct., Santa Fe Cty. Docket: D-101-PB-2015-00006
AARP Joins as Co-Counsel: 6/21/2018
Case Issue: Did Wells Fargo violate state and federal law when it originated a reverse mortgage loan that cost a borrower more than the loan for which the applicant applied and was approved; did Wells Fargo have standing to foreclose on the loan?
Case Name: Taaffe v. Drake
Court: U.S. Dist Ct. SD Ohio Docket: 15-02870
Case Result: Plaintiffs reinstated to prior positions. OSU paid $765,000 and agreed to add "age" to the list of protected categories on job posting sites; hold two trainings regarding age discrimination and HR investigations; adopt a "second look" policy where HR complainants can appeal results of investigation and obtain an unconflicted individual's review; and University-wide review of all discrimination policies and guidelines.
Case Name: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (Motion to Intervene and Petition for Rehearing)
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 17-10238
Case Result: In a 2-to-1 order, the Fifth Circuit panel denied AARP's motion to intervene to file a petition for rehearing en banc to review the court's invalidation of the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule that protects consumers from conflicts of interest when saving for their retirement.
Case Name: Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. SD Fla. Docket: 17-cv-60664-CMA
Withdrew from Case: 3/22/209
Read Complaint (PDF)
Case Update: Withdrew from case following the death of the client.
Case Name: AARP v. EEOC
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C. Docket: 16-2113
Read Opinion (PDF)
Case Result: AARP successfully convinced the D.C. District Court to vacate the EEOC’s 2016 wellness rules. The court made the rules ineffective as of January 1, 2019—two years sooner than the agency proposed to take to issue new rules. This is a major victory for AARP and workers because it means two fewer years of coercive penalties imposed on employees who exercise their civil right to keep private information private in the workplace.
Case Name: Waldbuesser (formerly Grabek) v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. CD Cal. Docket: 06-cv-06213-R CJC
Read Decision (PDF)
Case Result: A settlement of $16,750,000, 4 incentive awards of $25,000 each, expenses of $1,159,114, and attorneys' fees of $5,583,333. Does not include settlement of companion case Marshall v. Northrop Grumman for claims after May 11, 2009.
Case Name: McGraw v. Chancellor Senior Management, LTD
Court: Circuit Ct., Raleigh County, WV Docket: 16-C-698
AARP Joined Care: 10/16/2017
Read Complaint (PDF)
Case Issue: Are Chancellor's practices of marketing certain levels of services, assessing care needs at admission, and charging fees based on those needs; but then, failing to have sufficient staff to actually meet those needs unfair or deceptive acts or practices under West Virginia's consumer protection statute?
Case Name: Single v. Catholic Pioneer Church Homes
Court: Superior Ct., State of Cal., County of Sacramento Docket: 2017-00220058
Case Issue: Can a nursing facility refuse to readmit a resident who has exercised her administrative due process rights and won the right to readmission?
Case Name: Pierce v. Genesis Healthcare
Court: Superior Ct. of Delaware Docket: S16C-09-002
Read Complaint (PDF)
Case Result: The case was settled.
Case Name: Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Kansas Docket: 16-cv-01282
Case Issue: In conducting a reduction-in-force, did the aerospace company target older workers in the hope of eliminating individuals with costly medical claims from the firm's self-insured medical plan?
Case Name: Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ND Cal. Docket: 16-02276
Case Issue: Do PwC's hiring and related employment practices have the purpose and effect of disadvantaging and deterring older applicants for entry- and mid-level jobs, in violation of federal and California age bias laws?
Case Name: Taaffe v. Ohio State Univ.
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. SD Ohio Docket: 15-02870
Case Issue: Did the university administrators allow the English as a Second Language department to conduct an orchestrated effort to drive older staff members out of their jobs through a pattern of age discrimination and harassment.
Case Name: O'Connor v. Eden Management
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ND Ill. Docket: 13cv7391
Case Issue: Is it a violation of Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Section 504 to deny housing to a person who has a history of mental illness?
Case Name: Romero v. Allstate Ins. Corp.
Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa. Docket: 01-03894
Case Issue: Did employer violate ERISA's prohibition against reducing pension benefits by phasing out early retirement benefits and changing the eligibility requirements for these benefits?